Obrazy na stronie

clare with authority what were, and constrained to advert, is that which is what were not, his views in issuing the expressed in the following words inhibition-it records an acknowledge- “ what would have been equivalent to ment from Mr. Nolan, that when the ordination, permission to officiate as a Archbishop pronounced him incom- clergyman.” The meaning of this expetent to discharge clerical duties pression is either general, that perwith propriety, (which was, as Mr. mission from the Archbishop of Dublin Nolan affirms, two years and seven to any person is equivalent to ordinamonths since,) his Grace was justified tion, or it is limited, and intimates the in denying him permission to officiate- value of such permission if given to and iť exhibits an opinion as held by the individual who then sought it, Mr. his Grace of Dublin and his chaplains, L. J. Nolan. In either sense, we conin which we fondly hope no other tend, the expression is incorrect. The bishop and chaplains in the united permission of the Archbishop would Church of England and Ireland will not, in any case whatever, be equivalent be found to participate. We do not to ordination. Deliberately to affirm wish to be censorious in our observa- that it would, indicates a very exag. tions. We do not wish to inflict, even gerated notion of the Archbishop's had we the power, unnecessary pain. power, or denotes a very inadequate For one of the parties whose name has comprehension of the solemn rite of become connected with this unhappy ordination.* Power to administer, and transaction, we have long entertained permission to officiate, are, in truth, feelings of respect and affection, from privileges altogether distinct and indewhich it would be very painful to us pendent of each other. The one is to be severed ; but, as we impute no derived through the imposition of blame to the holders of the opinion, hands in ordination—the other is conas they have courageously and can. ferred at the will of the ordinary, by didly, because unnecessarily, avowed his license. The one is a power which it, we will not think, that any private abides with the individual on whom it feeling can be embittered by entering has been bestowed, so that by no a protest against it, in respectful terms, human authority can he divest himself but in the strongest also which our of it-the other is a right which may temperate vocabulary can supply ; be- be resigned at will, and of which for a cause of what we believe to its un- variety of causes, the possessor may soundness in doctrine, and its most be deprived. The one imprints an injurious tendency.

indelible character—the other assigns The opinion to which we feel thus an office of which the holder may be

[ocr errors]

* “ Ministeral power is a mark of separation, because it severeth them that have it from other men, and maketh a special order, consecrated unto the service of the Most High, in things wherewith others may not meddle. Their difference, therefore, from other men is in that they are a distinct order. So Tertullian calleth them. And St. Paul himself, dividing the body of the Church of Christ into two moieties, nameth the one part idátar, which is as much as to say the order of the laity, the opposite part whereunto we in like sort term the order of God's clergy, and the spiritual power which he hath given them, the power of their order, so far forth as the same consisteth in the bare execution of holy things, called properly the affairs of God for of the power of their jurisdiction over men's persons we are to speak in the books following. They which have once received this power may not think to put it off or on like a cloak, as the weather serveth, to take it, reject, and resume it as oft as themselves list; of which profane and impious contempt these latter times have yielded, as of other kinds of iniquity and apostacy-strange examples. But let them know, which put their land unto this plough, that once consecrated unto God, they are made his peculiar inheritance for ever. Suspensions may stop, and degradations utterly cut off the use or exercise of power before given ; but voluntarily it is not in the power of man to separate and pull asunder what God by his authority coupleth. So that although there may be through this desert degradation, as there be cause of just separation after matrimony; yet if (as sometimes it doth) restitution to former dignity, or reconciliation after breach doth happen, neither doth the one nor the other ever iterate the first knot; much less is it necessary, which some have urged, concerning the reordination of such, as others in times more corrupt did consecrate heretofore—which error, already quelled by St. Jerome, doth not now require any other refutation."Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 5.

[ocr errors]

come dispossessed. In what sense, derstand, and would acknowledge its then, can permission to officiate and propriety. But to affirm that an equiordination be termed equivalent ? valent for ordination was granted to, or

If permission to officiate as a clergy- was withheld from, one who had man be equivalent to ordination, ordi, already received that of which it was nation is unnecessary. But the Church the equivalent, is not to speak rationof England declares that no man who ally; it is, indeed, to pronounce that in lias not been duly ordained, shall pre- the case of Mr. Nolan, the permission sume to officiate.

sought and refused was wholly super

fluous, because its use was that it « No man shall be accounted, or taken should serve as an equivalent for orto be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon dination, and he had already been in the united Church of England and ordained. Ireland, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, which which the efficacy ascribed to

There is another supposition by examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following,

permission” might be rendered inor hath before had Episcopal ordination telligible, namely, that the present or consecration.” Book of Common Archbishop of Dublin is invested with Prayer-preface to the form and manner

a species of dispensing power-accordof making, ordaining, &c. &c.

ing to which he can supersede the con

stitutious of the Church, can disregard If the Archbishop of Dublin would the book of common prayer, and by admit a person not thus qualified to his simple “sic volo” convey all the officiate as a clergyman, we do not power and authority imparted in the hesitate to affirm that he would in so rite of ordination. But we are perdoing transgress the laws of his church. suaded that no such power will be asIf he require ordination as an indis- serted on his Grace's behalf, and acpensible pre-requisite to his granting cordingly, we conclude that the prosuch permission, he cannot, rationally, position on which we have been comaccount “permission” an equivalent menting is in itself untrue, and that no for what it cannot represent, for what privileges belonging to his Grace the it presupposes, for that of which it can- Archbishop of Dublin, and no peculis not supply the absence or want. It arities in the case of Mr. Nolan furnish is clear, then, that in the ordinary and an excuse for it. general sense of the terms, it would be Perhaps, although not correctly exa very grave error to pronounce “per- pressed, the proposition has an inmission to officiate, equivalent to or- telligible meaning. We shall recite dination."

the sentence preceding that in which Is there any such peculiarity in the the censurable expression occurs. circumstances or condition of Mr.

“ Mr. Nolan having some time ago Nolan, as justify the use of such appeared before the Archbishop, applying expressions, if limited to his particular for some clerical appointment, was found case? It would appear to us that the

on examination not to possess that knowlimitation rather serves to render the ledge which is requisite for a candidate incorrectness more manifest.

The for holy orders.” Archbishop of Dublin regarded that

Then follow's the objectionable pasgentleman either as a layman or an ecclesiastic ; as an individual seeking sageadmission into priest's orders, or as

“ His Grace was of course obliged to one who had been already ordained. decline giving him at that time what If he accounted Mr. Nolan a layman, would have been equivalent to ordination, his case is of the kind which has been permission to officiale as a clergyman.” already considered. We need not return to it. If, on the other hand, his It is possible that the term "equiGrace regarded him as a person in valent” may have been designed to orders, be must have known, surely, convey no more emphatic idea, and that he did not a second time require have been used in no higher sense than ordination, in order to his engaging in to intimate that permission to officiate clerical duties. Why should, therefore, would be as effectual a recognition of the grace to be accorded to him be Mr. Nolan's competency to discharge pronounced equivalent to ordination ? clerical duties, as that which takes Had it been described as supplemental, place when, under other circumstances, 3s conferring a right to exercise powers a candidate is admitted to holy orders. bestowed by ordination, we could un- In the ceremonial of ordination there

is a solemn attestation given to the have no wish, to sit in judgment on learning and godly conversation of any exercise of power which men in those persons who are candidates. authority may think themselves called There is also a solemn service, holy on to make. We have no wish to and earnest prayers, and the appointed spy out blemishes, and are far, indeed, imposition of hands through which from the desire to abridge episcopal graces are sought and imparted to authority, or to bring it into disrepute. those who are commissioned to preach For ourselves we distinctly and deGod's word, and to administer sacra- liberately affirm that we would not ments. If it be the habit of his Grace willingly, had we opportunity and the Archbishop to think or speak with power, officiate in the diocese of Dublin, slight regard of the deep spiritualities in opposition to the Archbishop's ex. of ordination, and if his thoughts are pressed direction and will ; and with accustomed to rest on the public noti- all our respect for Mr. Nolan's high fication of the candidates' worth, as character and attainments, and without that which is alone, or principally, im- at all presuming to judge whether the portant, we can understand that the motives by which he was influenced word “equivalent" has been delibe- ought not to be more constraining than rately employed—the ceremonial of ours, we should be well pleased to find ordination, and the forms of permission that when that excellent man underhaving, according to his Grace's judy- took to officiate in Dublin, he did so ment, one meaning ; but if he believe not deliberately and with full knowthe elevating and subduing service by ledge of his Grace's objection. We which the Church sets apart an order are not, therefore, to be regarded as of men to minister before the Lord, condemning an exercise of episcopal and supplicates that he will bestow authority of which we cannot see the upon them richly his promised graces, advantage. But the same disposition to be more than idle words, he can- to respect legitimate power which not have wilfully suggested or per- draws from us this declaration, influmitted the application to it of a dis- ences us also to protest against any paraging, and indeed a profaning ex- exercise by which legitimacy itself is pression, and he will, we are persuaded, threatened or shaken.

The same take some public opportunity to undo jealousy, with which, had we power, the mischief it is likely to effect wher- we would defend the rights or dignity ever his name possesses authority. of Archbishop Wiately, would arouse

Having assigned the reason why us to remonstrate, if, inadvertently, or Mr. Nolan's application to the Arch- of set design, we found his Grace bishop proved unsuccessful, the official moving his neighbour's land-mark;" statement proceeds to explain the re- and, as we would express unfeigned fusal, continued to this day, of tủe regret that Mr. Nolan, coming from permission which nearly three years the diocese of Meath, should take upon since had been vainly solicited. him, in opposition to the Archbishop's

will, to preach in Dublin, so must we “ In an interview with us lately, Mr. also regret that, in the explanation of Nolan admitted that he was ignorant of his Grace's conduct which bas been the Scriptures at the period of that ex, officially sent forth, an expression is to amination, and that the Archbishop had be found by which the authority and acted rightly in refusing him leave to preach. He added that since that period "Church in Ireland' seems virtually,

jurisdiction of every prelate of the be had acquired knowledge. OF THIS THE ARCHBISHOP HAD

though indirectly, abrogated. JUDGING, MR. NOLAN HAVING

“Of this the Archbishop had no means

of judying, Mr. Nolan having never GRACE. When, therefore, Mr. Nolan commenced preaching in the dio presented himself a second time to his

Grace.” cese of Dublin, after having been refused permission as above stated, it became ne

No means of judging !!" Mr. Nolan cessary, as a matter of course, to direct

was a curate in the diocese of Meathan inhibition against him."

he had obtained that permission* to We have no right, and certainly officiate which the Archbishop of




It has been affirmed that Mr. Nolan was not duly licensed by his diocesan. We have not ascertained whether the assertion is correct. It may have been in his case, as we have known it to be in the instance of many curates, that permission to, Dublin pronounces equivalent to or- amine a minister who seeks at his dination, and which, accordingly, in hands collation to a benefice. It is his Grace's judgment, at least bears right that he should be afforded all testimony to the a learning and godly facilities to judge the fitness of one to conversations of the individual to whom momentous interests are to be whom it is granted—and yet it is said entrusted, for the duties he is about to that the Archbishop had no means of undertake. It is right that he should judgingo whether Mr. Nolan “had have assurance not only of general acquired knowledge." Surely to as- ability and good conversation, but also certain that the important permission” of those qualities which promise harbad been obtained, a personal inter- monions and edifying correspondence view with Mr. Nolan was not ne- and intercourse between the minister cessary.

and his particular congregation. But But we must be more exact. When where there is no permanent relation the Archbishop declined giving Mr. formed-where the matter to bo conNolan permission to officiate as a sidered is the qualification required in clergyman, he "pointed out to him a a stranger who is solicited to perform course of study, and expressed his some occasional act of ministerial duty, readiness to admit him to a re-ex. it appears that no such authority is amination when better prepared.” given. It is directed, in this case, to When next his Grace's attention was a certain that the stranger is subject to drawn to the rev. gentleman, it found episcopal governance, and that he is bim in circumstances which rendered duly accredited and authorised by his the proffered re-examination unneces. proper superior. Where the requisite sary. Mr. Nolan was curate of Ath. testimonials are found, they are assumed boy. The fact of his having obtained to certify competent knowledge and the requisite permission to officiate propriety of life. By this regulation bad become notorious, and if the Arch- the Church is preserved as a national bishop desired no further satisfaction establishment. If bishops were to disthan an assurance upon this point, he allow the testimonials of their brethren, could have obtained it from a still more (and to insist on an examination is to unsuspicious source than the lips of a disallow them,) each diocese would beparty interested, by directing an in- come an established church, separate quiry to be made at the office of the and estranged from every other dioEcclesiastical Commission. When, cese, and perhaps hostile also. By therefore, his Grace is represented as insisting on re-examining Mr. Nolan having no means of judging as to the the Archbishop of Dublin claimed a proficiency of Mr. Nolan, because that power which would have proved detrigentleman had not sought a second mental to the general well-being of the audience, it seems evident that a “re- church, and with which, therefore, the examination" was the sole “means of canons did not endow him. The judging" by which the Archbishop of power to inhibit we do not dispute. Dublin desired to be satisfied.

Upon the exercise of that power we This means of judging," the canons do not sit in judgment; but the reason of the Church, in our opinion, most given for the late exercise has been wisely disallow.

A bishop may ex- thrown out before the public, and we

officiate was not given with all the formalities which ecclesiastical discipline in its strictness enjoins. We do not enter at large into this part of the case, because our limited space will not allow of our undertaking it with a hope of giving it a full examination. We confine ourselves to a review of the reasons assigned on behalf of the Archbishop for his act of power. Mr. Nolan was inhibited, not for want of a license from the Bishop of Meath, but because he had not license or authority from his Grace of Dublin. Had the want of letters testimonial from his diocesan been the reason why Mr. Nolan was denied permission to preach, it is, we trust, no more than justice to affirm that the inhibition or the explanation would have stated as much. The reasons assigned, however, are that the authority of the Archbishop of Dublin had not been obtained, and that his Grace did not consider Mr. Nolan competent to the discharge of clerical duties. Such being the case, it would be superfluous labour to investigate the ground of assertions relative to a license from Meath, or to the degree in which such considerations affect the question at issue. That question is no$, was Mr. Nolan rightly inhibited from preachiog ?—but, are the reasons assigned on the part of his Grace the Archbishop satisfactory? Vol. IX.

n и


have no hesitation in declaring that it from the national establishment, disis unsatisfactory and incorrect. Mr. closing a very remarkable peculiarity L. J. Nolan was refused permission of religious opinion, and assuming a to officiate because of his alleged ig- very extraordinary privilege in matters norance. That cause, with due respect of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. There for the regulations of the Church, may be found some who will say that could not be assigned against a settled in commenting on such manifestations and officiating minister. If Mr. Nolan of sentiment and belief, we have apwere, as he professed, curate of Ath- plied ourselves to topics incidental and boy, to accuse him of ignorance would collateral, to the exclusion of what was be a violation of decorum, a wide more obviously the matter most to be departure from the respect and defer- regarded. Our reply is, that we have ence owing to the bishop who had ad- addressed our observations to that mitted himn into his diocese, and in- which we accounted of the highest deed a contumelious disregard of the moment—to principles which must

If he was not what he pro- ever be matter of grave alarm, rather fessed to be, there was a still better than to an incident which, considered ground than ignorance for the inhi- apart from the maxims by which it is bition. But Mr. Nolan was, we hope, justified, might have been, for a time we may say (unless promotion has a subject of poignant regret, and then removed him) is, curate of Athboy. a warning against subsequent inadThe Archbishop does not express a vertencies. We looked upon the docudoubt of the fact. We therefore com- ments issued in the Archbishop's justiplain, not that he issued an inhibition, fication, as containing expressions by which we believe it may have been which the holy rite of ordination was competent for him to do, but that he profaned, and advancing claims by required what was not competent for which episcopal authority is dishim, a minister in the diocese of allowed ; and wherever we find such Meath, to submit to his examination ; expressions, whether they are or, what was still more objectionable, forth as constituting professedly the that he imputed ignorance to that substance of the document in which minister, because he had considered they occur, or seem parenthetically inhim ignorant before he had qualified sinuated, like the celebrated “proponhimself to undertake the duties of a entibus legatis” of Pius IV. we shall concure, and because in despite of the tinue to pronounce them the scandals testimony borne by his clerical ap- which most imperatively demand corpointment, he was resolved to think rection, holding that the severity under him so still.

wbich the purest individual may suffer It is not matter of surprise that an or sink, is not worthy to be compared inhibition issued under such circum- with the injury done by a proposistances, and justified by such explana- tion, appearing as part of an official tions, shall have brought gladness to statement, which a knowledge of its the enemies of the Protestant Church author alone would prevent us from and religion, or that it should cause to pronouncing a defamatory libel on the us much anxiety and sorrow. The spiritual offices of our Church, and an whole transaction seems to indicate a avowal of contempt for her constituted separation of the diocese of Dublin authorities.




The poems of Henry More, the Pla- Review, neither of them exhibiting tonist, are but seldoin opened in our

the peculiar character of the poems ; day ; the neglect into which they have and both critics, it would seem, wholly fallen, though easily enough accounted uninterested by the philosophy of the for, is we think undeserved. We know writer on whom they were commentbut of two accounts of the volume, ing. We therefore think we are doing one in the Omniana, and a second in

some service in bringing before the the fifth volume of the Retrospective public some extracts from the works of

« PoprzedniaDalej »